An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press
Prime Minister Cameron: 2010-present
Prime Minister Cameron: 2010-present
¶3.1 There has been a significant and inevitable diminution in Mr Cameron's personal engagement
with the media once in office. Comparison of the lists of meetings which he provided for the periods as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister showed that the number of contacts halved from approximately 26 meetings or interviews per month to 13. There was a simple and compelling explanation for this change in the tempo of media engagement, as Mr Cameron explained:219
"As I say, when I was elected, I did try to do less of this and try to have more of a distance, try to make sure – because genuinely when you're in opposition, what are you doing? You're campaigning, you're drawing up policies, you're trying to convince people. In government, it is and should be different. You should be spending your time governing, not talking about governing, so I did try to create some more distance, but as I explained earlier I think it's very difficult because of these daily battles that you fight".
¶3.2 It is clear that Mr Cameron did very consciously change his approach to the press between
¶Opposition and Government. He had some observations about the process:220
"Yes. I think it's right that in government you're making real decisions rather than just policy ideas and campaigns, so it's more important that what you do is done properly. And that's why you have special advisers' codes, ministerial codes and all the rest of it. But I do think there is – when you're leader of the opposition, and I did the job for five years, it's only in the last year you get the sort of Civil Service machine starting to talk to you about how you'd translate your structure and your processes into Number 10 Downing Street, and I think there could be a strength in – I don't believe in having a sort of official opposition office, as it were, but I think there could be a strength in having earlier discussions between the Cabinet Secretary or the Permanent Secretary at Number 10 with a new leader of the opposition, just to make them aware of some of the processes and practices that might assist them in the work that they do and avoiding any conflicts and the rest of it."
¶3.3 The latter is an interesting point. I can see that it might even have a potential to reduce
the risk, which Mr Campbell felt had eventuated in 1997, of an opposition party carrying the media tactics of Opposition into Government. The same outcome, however, can also be approached (or assisted) by a more open and transparent approach to the press. I shall return to this issue when analysing possible ways forward.
¶3.4 Asked whether media engagement in Government occupied time at the expense of policy I
formation, leadership and Government, Mr Cameron described how he sought to arrange his private office at No 10 Downing Street to reflect the extra distance from the media which he sought so as to be able to concentrate on Government:221
1210"It shouldn't, but it can. I think the way I've explained the 24-hour news agenda, when I arrived in Downing Street, I did think that the set-up was quite geared to 24- hour news. It felt too much like a newsroom, and that's what the press department
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
should be like, but you have to try and create a structure and a private office and a set of arrangements where you can think, take decisions, prepare for decisions properly, structure your day so you're not permanently in a sort of news warfare mode, if I can put it that way."
¶3.5 The risk which Mr Cameron was seeking to avoid, and which he graphically described in
the quotation as news warfare mode, was of spending a disproportionate amount of time engaging with what is now a truly 24 hour, multi-media news cycle. It is the challenge which faces all current and future politicians. Establishing and maintaining both healthy boundaries and sufficient distance in this environment is not easy when what is published and broadcast can, at least over time, be so influential to a political party's fortunes. Mr Cameron accepted that he had not always been wholly successful in resisting the demands of the 24 hour news cycle. This was the exchange with Counsel to the Inquiry:222
"Q. You refer to having a bit more distance. That depends, I suppose, on each party to the debate, as it were, having a sense of propriety as to what is right and where the boundaries are. Are we agreed about that? A. I think that's right, but distance is also about for the politician, and this relates to the issue of the 24-hour news cycle. There is a difficulty in – I'm not expecting sympathy for this, but there's a difficulty in politics that you are fighting a sort of permanent battle of issues being thrown at you hour by hour where responses are demanded incredibly quickly, and it can, if you're not careful, take up all your energy in dealing with that, and that is hopeless, because if that's what you spend your time doing, you will never reform our schools, cut our deficit, deal with our economic problems and all the rest of it. When I say distance, partly what I mean is that the politicians, and particularly prime ministers and Cabinet ministers, have to get out of the 24-hour news cycle, not try and fight every hourly battle, and focus on long-term issues and be prepared sometimes to take a hit on a story they don't respond to so quickly. That's very easy to say that, but I did actually try on getting into Number 10 Downing Street to do that. I'm not sure it's always been totally successful, but that's part of what I mean by distance. It means not sitting under a 24-hour news television screen looking at the ticker and worrying about what's happening every hour. If you do that, you get completely buried by the daily news agenda." (emphasis added)
¶3.6 Focusing more specifically on newspapers, Mr Cameron explained how technological change
has affected the content of printed news coverage, forcing it away from its historic model which focused on reporting the previous day's news:223
¶I
1211"… I think a lot of evidence that's been put forward in the sessions you've had where people have talked about the growth of the 24-hour news culture, the fact that things move so fast that I think newspapers have been put in a difficult position, because the news has been made and reported long before they reach their deadlines and they publish their papers the next day, so I think newspapers have moved more towards trying to find impact, trying to find an angle on a story, rather than, as would have been the case before 24-hour news and all the rest of it, of just reporting what happened the day before.
¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
So I think there has been a change, but I think that's quite a lot to do with technology and the development of the media rather than anything else."
¶3.7 From the politician's perspective he considered this development to have been certainly one which has brought challenges:224
"I think from the politicians' point of view, and particularly perhaps from the government's point of view, it's sometimes a change for the worse, because if there's a big announcement, something we think is very important, that gets announced on the television, it gets picked over by the 24-hour news, and it's quite understandable that the newspapers, by the time they come out the next day, have to find something different, and I completely understand why they want to do that, but from the perspective of trying to explain to the country why you're making difficult decisions, why you're reforming the health service in this way, why you're trying to cut the deficit in that way and get across more what it is you actually decided to do rather than an endless analysis of what the motives were or what the splits were or whatever, but politicians will always complain about this sort of thing, so I wouldn't put too much weight on it".
¶3.8 Mr Osborne explained how he and Mr Cameron had drawn lessons from New Labour's media
strategy in the early days of the New Labour Government and confirmed that there was less emphasis in Government on fighting for every headline than there had been in Opposition. He pointed out, though, that the proliferation of news sources has in any event now made such an endeavour impossible. He said:225
1212"This is going to sound like talking my own book, but it also, I think, is genuinely the case. I think New Labour were very aggressive, when they became the government, in pursuing the media management techniques they had developed in opposition. And they had developed those techniques in opposition, to be fair to them, because of the way people like Neil Kinnock had been treated by all the press beforehand. Now, we learnt, in a way, from that. We were – we came of political age – myself, David Cameron and others – during that political period, and we felt too that that government in its early years had been too obsessive about tomorrow's headline and tried to control every aspect of the media. That's not to say when we came into government, we didn't want to have a good and effective media operation, but we were more relaxed about fighting for every single headline or fighting for every news bulletin, and I think there is also partly an understanding on our behalf that in what has become, even over that period, a much more fragmented media, it is impossible to manage every single headline or fight for every headline. In the end, we had a belief that – we came into government, we had I to set out some difficult things we needed to do and we would trust ultimately to the judgment of the public but also trust to the judgment of the media, even if along the line you got some bad headlines. Certainly, I have been more relaxed as Chancellor of the Exchequer in that early period than I would have been as Shadow Chancellor about some the headlines we've had."
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
¶3.9 That was not to say, however, that there had not still been a close relationship between the
press and the Coalition Government under Mr Cameron's leadership. Mr Osborne described calling editors and proprietors often:226
"… I often make calls to editors and proprietors after Major Treasury announcements and fiscal events which the diary records as a single block of time for "calls to editors"…"
¶3.10 Mr Cameron candidly accepted that political news management strategies had not always
been unambiguously in the public interest, and not just those of other political parties. When asked whether he had seen evidence of attempts to control the news agenda by politicians in his own party through favouritism and anonymous briefings, he replied:227
"Yes. These things do happen and it's deeply regrettable. I think as long as there's been a press and politicians these things happen. But it is very regrettable, it often makes running a political party more difficult, running a government more difficult. It's deeply destructive. I think there are degrees of this. Of course, you know, some politicians have journalists they have a particular good relationship with, they think they're going to understand a particular speech or a particular idea better than others, and in this world where the newspapers aren't reporting yesterday's news, because that's already been reported, clearly newspapers are looking for something special, they're looking for a particular angle or a particular story. So there are responsible ways of handling media relations in that way, but briefing against people, doing people down, there are some dreadful things that have been done in politics on both sides in recent years, and they're very, very regrettable." (emphasis added)
¶3.11 As for a solution to the problem, Mr Cameron agreed that there was no single panacea, that
a mixture of rules and culture were required and that political leaders themselves needed to put a halt to bad practice and a poor culture.228
¶3.12 A good start has already been made so far as transparency is concerned. On 15 July 2011, Mr
Cameron was responsible for the amendment of the Ministerial Code requiring Ministers to disclose their meetings with media proprietors, editors and senior executives. The relevant addendum to the Code reads:
"The Government will be open about its links with the media. All meetings with newspaper and other proprietors, editors and senior executives will be published
¶I quarterly regardless of the purpose of the meeting".
¶3.13 The current practice is that all Government departments compile the information required
1213by the Ministerial Code set out above and give details of the month the meeting took place, the name of the individual and organisation meeting the Minister, and the purpose of the meeting. Each list is available for public inspection on the relevant departmental website (as part of a wider list of Ministers' meetings with external organisations), as well as via links on
¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
the No 10 website. In addition, hospitality received by Ministers is also declared and published on the respective websites.229
¶3.14 Mr Cameron has made public the fact of his Ministerial meetings with media proprietors,
editors and senior executives since the 2010 General Election, regardless of the nature of the meeting.230 It has been an important step forward and transparency is an issue to which I shall return.
¶3.15 Amendment of the Ministerial Code was undoubtedly a very important step towards
affording the transparency that is going to be vital if public trust in the relationship between our national press and politicians is to be rebuilt. An important issue is whether it would be desirable to go further. On that question Mr Cameron thought that there was room for improvement. His view was:231
"I think there are improvements we can make here. I think the idea that someone suggested of a sort of written note of every interaction with every editor, every broadcast – I think that would be overly bureaucratic because most of the meetings are pretty similar. You're explaining why you're in favour of free schools and academies and how to get that message across, and why the policy's a good idea. You're explaining something that you've already published. But where I think there is potential for improvement is in two areas. If it's obvious that this is a meeting where the proprietor or the broadcasting business or what have you has got some, you know, commercial issues they want to raise, then I think it does make sense that a note is taken. Or, if in a meeting that's really about your policies and your approach and the rest of it, there's a discussion about commercial interests, then I think again in government, you know, under the Ministerial Code, I think it's probably right that the minister or the politician should make a reference to that to the private secretary."
¶3.16 He also warned against an excessively bureaucratic approach which might easily become counter-productive:232
"The problem with all this is the more rules and codes we create, the more difficult it is to make sure in every instance that people abide by them. I don't want to create a system that doesn't work, that is permanently broken. That would actually sap the faith of the public in this whole area. But I think some modest additions to the Ministerial Code to deal with the two points I've made, I think that is something we could certainly look at."
¶3.17 I have no hesitation in endorsing the proposal that consideration should be given to I
1214enhancing the Ministerial Code so as to require a note to be taken at meetings with media proprietors, editors and senior executives at which their commercial interests are discussed and that should such an issue be raised in the course of a meeting with a different purpose, of which a note is not being taken, then that issue should be reported to the Minister's private secretary. Indeed, as I have said, I believe that it is appropriate to go further and I shall return
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
to the concept of greater transparency when discussing the appropriate conclusions and recommendations to make.
¶3.18 A consequence of Mr Cameron's contact with the media throughout his career, and in
his private life, is that he has formed many friendships with people in the media. When compiling the lists of those media figures with whom he had had contact both as Leader of the Opposition and in Government, there are some whom he had met so often that it was impractical to list contacts individually. Instead he identified them:233
"There is a small number of journalists who are close friends of mine and who I see so frequently that I have not included them systematically in these lists, namely Daniel Finkelstein, Alice Thomson and Sarah Vine from The Times, Xan Smiley and Christopher Lockwood from The Economist, and Robert Hardman from The Daily Mail. While my contacts are mainly social, they are also people with whom I discuss politics and particular projects, such as speeches."
¶3.19 The number of such friends demonstrates that Mrs Brooks was not alone amongst media
figures with whom Mr Cameron socialised. Mr Smiley is a neighbour of Mr Cameron's and Mr Finkelstein a former Conservative Party Parliamentary candidate, giving some indication of the diverse ways in which Mr Cameron has formed these media friendships. It is a convenient point at which to emphasise that there is absolutely nothing wrong with friendships between politicians and journalists and that they will inevitably be close contact between the two which result in friendships. That is not only perfectly normal, it is good. It is worth repeating: it is not friendship that is relevant to the Terms of Reference but, rather, the way in which what the politicians have described as 'overly close' relationships can impact on policy and the needs of transparency to ensure that this becomes apparent.
¶Relations with Telegraph Media Group
¶3.20 Naturally, Mr Cameron continued to make efforts to retain the very strong links which he
fostered with the Telegraph Media Group (TMG) in Opposition. He has met with a number of senior executives and editors on a number of occasions since the election.234 Aidan Barclay's business interests are very much wider than TMG and so there are additional reasons why he is an important person for Mr Cameron to remain in contact with. There have been two face- to-face meetings since the election, in the period covered by disclosure to the Inquiry, which well illustrate how Mr Cameron has continued to engage in a mixture of formal and informal contact with senior media figures. On 6 July 2010 there was a meeting at No 10 Downing Street for general discussion followed by drinks.235 To put this meeting into context, it was one of a number of meetings with media proprietors and senior media executives which Mr
¶I Cameron had in the months immediately after he became Prime Minister.236 Mr Barclay was
1215then given dinner on 18 November 2010 by Mr and Mrs Cameron, at which there was general discussion.237
¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
¶3.21 Rupert Murdoch pointed out that in contrast to Mr Barclay he had not been invited to dine
at No 10 by Mr Cameron: "…Unlike Mr Barclay I don't get invited to dinner at 10 Downing Street…".238 It is right that Mr Murdoch does not appear to have had quite the same access to the Prime Minister if Mr Barclay is used as a comparator, although that is but one of a number of comparisons that might be made. Media proprietors certainly do enjoy a good level of access generally to our political leaders.
¶3.22 In addition to the face-to-face meetings, Mr Barclay and Mr Cameron have continued
occasionally to communicate by SMS text message. Only two of Mr Barclay's post-election texts disclosed to the Inquiry concerned a substantive issue and reflected Mr Barclay's interest in the macro-economic situation. One of Mr Barclay's texts read:239
"David im sure your aware [sic] that the credit markets are not good and are likely to get worse as they all err on the side of caution faced with combination of more regulation Basle 3 more liquidity losses from sovereign debt the end of bank of England support and potential tax all at wrong time for economy given also government cuts I hope you don't mind me mentioning it regards Aidan".
¶3.23 The other contained advice for Mr Cameron:
"Suggest therefor Bank of England announce extension to liquidity scheme allow Banks say 5yrs to implement Basle 3 and if you can scrap talk of Bank Tax other countries won't go along with it anyway Best Aidan"240
¶3.24 Mr Cameron explained how this was one of a number of economic views which he had received and, coming from informed sources, they were useful. He said:241
"Yes. I think this was the view of him, you know, not really as chairman of a newspaper group but as chairman of a big business heavily invested into the UK with lots of property and other businesses and this was his strong views about the financial situation and I think it's perfectly legitimate. I get a lot of exposure to businesses' views on these sorts of points, some by text, many more by the meetings I have, and that seems to me not a bad thing, as long as you can order them properly in your mind."
¶3.25 The contact was of a kind which is unexceptionable but the use of text messaging highlights
1216just how, in the age of informal electronic communications, policy issues are easily discussed privately without the need for a face-to-face conversation. As already discussed, Mr Cameron has proposed that any contact relating to the commercial interests of a media company which occurs should be noted, if it is pre-planned, and reported to a Minister's private secretary if it occurs spontaneously. It is difficult to see any difference in principle if the same sort of communication takes place by text, email or telephone. I shall also return to this issue when I discussing the way forward.242
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
Relations with News Corporation and News International Rupert Murdoch
¶3.26 The first of four post-election meetings between Mr Cameron and Rupert Murdoch took place
on 18 May 2010, shortly after Mr Cameron became Prime Minister. Mr Cameron explained how the meeting came about and gave his recollection of events which was as follows:243
"The reason for Rupert Murdoch's visit was that he was in London and in common with the reasons for my other meetings with newspaper proprietors and senior media executives, to set out the challenges that I and my Government saw the country facing and our broad approach to addressing them. I also wanted to thank him for his support. As far as I can recall, this meeting covered similar ground to my other meetings with newspaper proprietors and senior media executives at the time." (emphasis added)
¶3.27 Mr Murdoch recalled a short meeting at which he told Mr Cameron that his titles would be watching closely to ensure that campaign promises were kept:244
"…I do recall that, shortly after his election, Mr Cameron invited me in for tea at No.10 Downing Street, he thanked me for the support of our papers; I congratulated him and told him that I was sure our titles would watch carefully and report whether he kept all of his campaign promises. The meeting lasted at most 20 minutes..."
¶3.28 He also recalled that Mr Coulson "was present".245 Mr Coulson was certainly at No 10 when
the meeting occurred. He recalled that: "I met him when he arrived and took him to the Prime Minister's office. I didn't sit in on the meeting which I think lasted around 30 minutes. Afterwards I met him later in the corridor and we had a brief conversation."246
¶3.29 Commentators have observed that Mr Murdoch had been admitted to Number 10 otherwise
than through the famous front door and speculated as to the reason for that, suggesting that there was a desire to keep the meeting low key. Mr Cameron said that he was not involved in the arrangements but explained that No 10 has a number of entrances which frequently are and have been used by visitors now and in the past by previous administrations.247 There is also a car park to the rear. Mr Murdoch's evidence on the subject was somewhat equivocal, but a desire to avoid photographers appears to have played a part:248
"Q. On that occasion and possibly other occasions you go in through the back door, is that right?
¶I
1217¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
A. That – yes. There are reasons for that. They always seem to – don't want me to be photographed going out the front door or I don't want to be, but it also happens to be a shortcut to my apartment, so it's quite okay". Q. All right. Why do you think – A. And the car park [sic] is usually parked behind there, there's a car park behind 10 and 11 Downing Street."
¶3.30 Whatever the precise reason, the fact of the meeting was disclosed by Mr Cameron in his first quarterly release of general external meetings on 28 October 2010.249
¶3.31 The other three meetings included a dinner with Mayor Bloomberg, in New York, on 21 July
2010, the News Corp summer party on 16 June 2011, which is attended by a large number of politicians, amongst others, and the Times CEO summit dinner at which Mr Cameron was the keynote speaker.250 Of the dinner in New York, Mr Coulson said:251
"The second post-election meeting with Rupert Murdoch was in New York on the day Mayor Bloomberg organised a party in honour of the Prime Minister. Before the party Rupert Murdoch met David Cameron for around half an hour. He and I met briefly when he arrived, but I did not sit in on the meeting. In the evening, before the dinner, I had a longer conversation with Rupert Murdoch and his wife Wendi at the drinks reception. From memory we mostly discussed American politics".
¶3.32 It is not surprising that Mr Murdoch and Mr Cameron have not met since July 2011 when the
hacking scandal reached its apex. It is also right to observe that despite the election support afforded by News International's titles to Mr Cameron before the 2010 General Election, there has been noticeably critical coverage in News International and other titles dating from around the same time.
¶James Murdoch 3.33 James Murdoch met the Prime Minister twice after the 2010 General Election. The first
occasion was on 7 November 2010 when Mr Murdoch visited Chequers.252 The second occasion was a little over a month later, on 23 December 2010 at the home of Mr and Mrs Brooks.253 Both occasions took place whilst News Corp's bid to acquire BskyB was current. The second was two days after the sudden and dramatic events which had led to responsibility for considering the bid being transferred from Dr Cable to Mr Hunt. Mr Murdoch recalled a dozen or fifteen people being present. He said the events of 21 December 2010 were briefly touched upon in conversation:254
1218"… there was no discussion with Mr Cameron other than as I've detailed in my witness I statement, which is simply he reiterated what he had said publicly, which is that the
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
behaviour had been unacceptable, and I imagine I expressed a hope that things would be dealt with in a way that was appropriate and judicial".
¶3.34 Mr Cameron's recollection was to the same effect. Having reminded the Inquiry that he
had completely recused himself from the substantive decision about the bid, which is a fundamental consideration, he said:255
"Well, the gist was, as I explained, what Vince Cable had said, albeit privately but made publicly, was very embarrassing for the government, and I wanted to make clear, I think appropriately, that this shouldn't have happened, that it was wrong, and that this issue would now be dealt with entirely properly, and I thought that was quite an important point to make."
¶3.35 The comment was perfectly in order. However, the fact that there was mention of the bid at
a private function and that it had not previously been made public caused speculation when it emerged. Mr Cameron explained why Downing Street repeatedly declined to confirm the fact of the supper on 23 December 2010:256
"I think what would have happened here is that before we became totally transparent about all these meetings, if Downing Street press office was asked about any social engagement or private engagement they wouldn't normally answer those questions, and I think that's what happened on this occasion. So they said, "We don't comment on the Prime Minister's private or social engagements".
"I think the issue was pressed and in the end, I can't remember if it was me or someone else, suggested, "Come on, there's nothing to hide here, just answer the question", but we're now in a different world where all these sorts of meetings would be declared in the normal way, but at that stage we weren't routinely giving out private and social engagements." (emphasis added)
¶3.36 The encounter illustrates why transparency is needed and also why it would be prudent to enhance the current system of disclosure: once more, I shall return to this issue later.
¶Rebekah Brooks
¶3.37 After the 2010 General Election Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks continued to have a significant
amount of both formal and informal contact. Politicians, like everyone else, are free to choose their friends, and to be friends with whomsoever they please. What is of interest to the Inquiry, and what has been investigated, is whether the contact has brought with it any
¶I pressure or influence on the Coalition Government's policies.
¶3.38 Mr Cameron had dinner with the Brooks' on 22 May 2010.257 Mrs Brooks visited Chequers on three occasions:13 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB. pdf This evidence included hearsay, anonymous material which Michelle Stanistreet the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists sought to adduce from a number of journalists who feared for their careers if they spoke out in public. An application for this evidence to be heard was challenged by other Core Participants and subject to 'gateway' rulings by the Inquiry: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Witnesses-Ruling-PDF-64.5-KB.pdf and http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Evidence-28-November-2011.pdf. These were issued along with a protocol http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Protocol-regarding-Applications-for-Anonymity.pdf. The rulings were the subject of unsuccessful challenge in the Administrative Court (Toulson LJ, Sweeney and Sharp JJ): see R (on the application of Associated Newspapers Ltd v. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Leveson as Chairman of the Leveson Inquiry [2012] EWHC 57 (Admin), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assoc-news-v-chair-leveson-inquiry.pdf. There was then a substantive ruling on the merits of the application which was granted: http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous-witnesses-ruling-7-Feb-2012.pdf [2006] QB 468 p3 para d), Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/witness- statement-of-Professor-Baroness-ONeil See, however, the observations of Dr Manson on the nature of privacy rights in 'public' spaces and the difference between degrees of intensity in the public gaze: pp15-20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf; p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p19, lines 10-21, Professor John Tasioulas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp99-100, Spencer Feeney, Mike Gilson, John McLellan and Jonathan Russell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-18-January-2012.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/MSC_reporting_structure.html p4, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mark- Thompson.pdf p3, para 5, ibid Snoddy, R, The Good, the Bad, and the Unacceptable: The hard news about the British press, p84 p55, para 125, ibid p52, lines 4-18, DCI Gilmour, ibid Care was taken over this issue which became the subject of some controversy during the hearing and was the subject of a ruling: see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Operation-Motorman-and- ANL-10-July-2012.pdf. Associated Newspapers Ltd later confirmed that it did not advance a positive case contradicting the position that there exists prima facie evidence that journalists did act in breach of s55 by obtaining information which, prima facie, could not be justified in the public interest. That group thus fell into line with all other press core participants. p22, lines 18-24, Keith Surtees, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf pp97-98 passim, Margaret Watson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p4, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf p26, para 54, ibid p18 lines 13-18, Colin Myler, ibid pp30-31, lines 23-4, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf; p16, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf p5, line 11; p38, line 25; pp46-47, lines 24-12; p58, line 21; p26, line 14; p78, lines 4-11; JK Rowling, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf p119, lines 5-17, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; pp12-13, lines 15 –18, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p10, para 42, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Ed-Stearns.pdf http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm pp110-111, lines 4-10, Lord Stevens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-March-20122.pdf p30, lines 2-11, Elizabeth Filkin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf pp4-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf It is, perhaps, worthy of note that Mr Thomas appears to focus on the profile of s55 DPA rather than the underlying issue of the practices of the press p55, lines 3-6, Richard Thomas, ibid pp22-23, lines 23-6, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data p85, lines 9-14, Richard Thomas, ibid Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.73 pp33-34, lines 3-6, Kelvin Mackenzie, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf p39, lines 17-23, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p24, para 71, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf pp2-6, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-5.pdf p5, para 3.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-James-Rupert- Jacob-Murdoch.pdf p34, lines 16-22, ibid pp12-14, paras 41-44, ibid p22, para 5.10 ibid Part E, Chapter 4 Chapter 32, para 3.4 Having paid fulsome tribute to Mr Abell's witness statement, I should also record my admiration for the Media Standard Trust's work in this area. The relevant material and submissions is on the Inquiry website. Given its comprehensiveness, I have sought to boil the issues down somewhat p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf Part K, Chapter 1 p7, paras 22-23, ibid p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf Defamation Act 2009 s44, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2009/12/30/les-editeurs-de-presse-en-ligne-se-repartissent-20- millions-d-euros-d-aides_1285932_3236.html p1, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core-Participant- Victims1.pdf Part B Part F, Chapter 6, para 2.74 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.32 News Verlag GmbH & co KG v Austria (2000) 31 EHRR 246 at paragraph 39 June 2010,13 http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ruling-on-the-role-of-the-assessors-PDF-102-KB. pdf This evidence included hearsay, anonymous material which Michelle Stanistreet the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists sought to adduce from a number of journalists who feared for their careers if they spoke out in public. An application for this evidence to be heard was challenged by other Core Participants and subject to 'gateway' rulings by the Inquiry: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Witnesses-Ruling-PDF-64.5-KB.pdf and http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous- Evidence-28-November-2011.pdf. These were issued along with a protocol http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Protocol-regarding-Applications-for-Anonymity.pdf. The rulings were the subject of unsuccessful challenge in the Administrative Court (Toulson LJ, Sweeney and Sharp JJ): see R (on the application of Associated Newspapers Ltd v. The Rt Hon Lord Justice Leveson as Chairman of the Leveson Inquiry [2012] EWHC 57 (Admin), http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assoc-news-v-chair-leveson-inquiry.pdf. There was then a substantive ruling on the merits of the application which was granted: http://www.levesoninquiry. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Anonymous-witnesses-ruling-7-Feb-2012.pdf [2006] QB 468 p3 para d), Professor Baroness Onora O'Neill, http://levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/witness- statement-of-Professor-Baroness-ONeil See, however, the observations of Dr Manson on the nature of privacy rights in 'public' spaces and the difference between degrees of intensity in the public gaze: pp15-20, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2012/07/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf; p8, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/07/Witness-Statement-of-Dr-Neil-Manson.pdf p19, lines 10-21, Professor John Tasioulas, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-16-July-2012.pdf pp99-100, Spencer Feeney, Mike Gilson, John McLellan and Jonathan Russell, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-18-January-2012.pdf http://www.newscorp.com/corp_gov/MSC_reporting_structure.html p4, para 13, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Mark- Thompson.pdf p3, para 5, ibid Snoddy, R, The Good, the Bad, and the Unacceptable: The hard news about the British press, p84 p55, para 125, ibid p52, lines 4-18, DCI Gilmour, ibid Care was taken over this issue which became the subject of some controversy during the hearing and was the subject of a ruling: see http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Operation-Motorman-and- ANL-10-July-2012.pdf. Associated Newspapers Ltd later confirmed that it did not advance a positive case contradicting the position that there exists prima facie evidence that journalists did act in breach of s55 by obtaining information which, prima facie, could not be justified in the public interest. That group thus fell into line with all other press core participants. p22, lines 18-24, Keith Surtees, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-29-February-2012.pdf p2, para 6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Fourth-Witness-Statement-of-DAC-Sue- Akers.pdf pp97-98 passim, Margaret Watson, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-22-November-20111.pdf p4, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Caseby.pdf p26, para 54, ibid p18 lines 13-18, Colin Myler, ibid pp30-31, lines 23-4, Robert Jay QC, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-May-2012.pdf; p16, para 38, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ Witness-Statement-of-DCI-John-Macdonald.pdf p5, line 11; p38, line 25; pp46-47, lines 24-12; p58, line 21; p26, line 14; p78, lines 4-11; JK Rowling, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-November-20112.pdf p119, lines 5-17, Hugh Whittow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-January-2012.pdf; pp12-13, lines 15 –18, John Witherow, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-17-January-2012.pdf; p10, para 42, http://www. levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dominic-Mohan.pdf p6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-Ed-Stearns.pdf http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/4262.htm pp110-111, lines 4-10, Lord Stevens, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-6-March-20122.pdf p30, lines 2-11, Elizabeth Filkin, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of- Afternoon-Hearing-5-March-2012.pdf pp4-5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/First-Witness-Statement-of-Richard- Thomas-CBE.pdf It is, perhaps, worthy of note that Mr Thomas appears to focus on the profile of s55 DPA rather than the underlying issue of the practices of the press p55, lines 3-6, Richard Thomas, ibid pp22-23, lines 23-6, Christopher Graham, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-26-January-2012.pdf Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data p85, lines 9-14, Richard Thomas, ibid Part H, Chapter 5, para 2.73 pp33-34, lines 3-6, Kelvin Mackenzie, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-9-January-2012.pdf p39, lines 17-23, Sir John Major, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Transcript-of- Morning-Hearing-12-June-2012.pdf p24, para 71, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Witness-Statement-of-David- Cameron-MP.pdf pp2-6, Rupert Murdoch, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-5.pdf p5, para 3.2, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Witness-Statement-of-James-Rupert- Jacob-Murdoch.pdf p34, lines 16-22, ibid pp12-14, paras 41-44, ibid p22, para 5.10 ibid Part E, Chapter 4 Chapter 32, para 3.4 Having paid fulsome tribute to Mr Abell's witness statement, I should also record my admiration for the Media Standard Trust's work in this area. The relevant material and submissions is on the Inquiry website. Given its comprehensiveness, I have sought to boil the issues down somewhat p1, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Covering-Letter-from-Ofcom.pdf Part K, Chapter 1 p7, paras 22-23, ibid p3, para 5, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Regulation- Round-Table.pdf Defamation Act 2009 s44, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2009/12/30/les-editeurs-de-presse-en-ligne-se-repartissent-20- millions-d-euros-d-aides_1285932_3236.html p1, para 7, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Joint-Submission-by-Core-Participant- Victims1.pdf Part B Part F, Chapter 6, para 2.74 Part K, Chapter 7, para 4.32 News Verlag GmbH & co KG v Austria (2000) 31 EHRR 246 at paragraph 39 August 2010 and 9 October 2010258. The last of these visits
1219¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
was to celebrate the Prime Minister's birthday.259 Shortly before that, on 4 October 2010, she had met Mr Cameron at the Conservative Party Conference.260
¶3.39 Mrs Brooks hosted the dinner party on 23 December 2010, discussed above, at which there
was mention between James Murdoch and Mr Cameron of News Corp's bid to acquire BSkyB.261 On 26 December 2010 both Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks were at a party hosted by Mrs Brooks' sister in law, although both Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks recalled little contact on that occasion. Asked whether there was discussion of the BSkyB bid, Mr Cameron replied:262
"No, I don't think there was. My memory is that Boxing Day was actually Charlie Brooks' sister's house, there was a party, I think Rebekah was there briefly. I don't think there was – certainly I don't think there was a conversation about BSkyB. I'm not even sure there was much of a conversation at all, but that's my recollection".
¶3.40 Mrs Brooks was similarly unsure whether there had been any conversation at all and was sure that the BskyB bid had not been mentioned:263
"A. Yes, no, it's – I've been asked about it before. Mr Cameron attended a Boxing Day mulled wine, mince pie party at my sister-in-laws, and I popped in on my way to another dinner and I actually don't have any memory, because I don't think I did even speak to him or Samantha that night, but my sister-in-law tells me they were definitely there for the party, so I would have seen them, but not even to have a proper conversation. Q. So as to the scope of any conversation, which you say wasn't a proper conversation, are you sure it would not have covered the BskyB issue? A. Boxing Day. A. Definitely. Absolutely not. I mean, I don't think there was a conversation."
¶3.41 Other Cabinet Ministers also maintained the connection with News International generally
and Mrs Brooks in particular. The most frequent such contact was with Mr Osborne who had six meetings with Mrs Brooks after the election, two of which were at Dorneywood.264
¶3.42 Turning to specific issues, the Inquiry explored with both the Home Secretary, the Rt Hon
1220Theresa May MP, and the Prime Minister what role Mrs Brooks and The Sun had played in the decision for the Metropolitan Police to review the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The review had the benefit of extra financial support from the Home Office and was a subject of interest to a number of newspapers and their readers. The object of the review was to establish whether there were any other avenues of inquiry that should be pursued.265 I
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
¶3.43 On 11 May 2011, Mrs Brooks saw two of Mr Cameron's SpAds about the review. Both she
and Mr Mohan also spoke to the Home Secretary about it by telephone. Mrs May was able to explain that the decision to have the Metropolitan Police review the case was, in fact, not one which had been made suddenly:266
"No, a review was not ordered – was not requested or required at short notice. The Home Office had been discussing – first started discussing with ACPO the possibility of a Police Review or further police work on this – they first started discussing with ACPO under the previous government. So the discussion had been taking place for some time – it took place with ACPO initially – for ACPO to identify which police force would be appropriate to undertake the is work, if it was to be undertaken, and at the same time there were discussions taking place with the Portuguese authorities, because of course, no UK police force can go into another country and start investigating; they can only do so with the agreement, approval and assistance of the resident authorities in that country."
¶3.44 She was clear that she had not been threatened with adverse coverage if she did not support
the review by either Mrs Brooks or Mr Mohan. On the contrary, she had called them to tell them about developments: "I think it was a call at my instigation". The exchange with Counsel to the Inquiry was as follows:267
"Q. Did Mrs Brooks say anything about – words to this effect: that unless you ordered the review, you would be on the front page of the Sun until that happened? A. No. Neither Mrs Brooks or Mr Mohan made any indication of that sort to me. The nature of the telephone conversation was to alert them to the fact that the government was taking some action, that there was going to be this further work by the police here in the UK and to put forward the point that it was very important that the UK authorities were able to work with the Portuguese authorities."
¶3.45 The Home Secretary did not feel that she had been pressured behind the scenes on the issue to take a position she would not otherwise have taken. Rather, she said:268
"I felt that the work that we were doing to look at this review had been going on for some time, it was coming to a fruition around this time anyway, and obviously the issue was a matter of public concern."
¶3.46 The Prime Minister similarly had not felt pressured by Mrs Brooks, whether directly or
indirectly, to support and finance the review: "Pressure? No I wasn't aware of any pressure".269 He had checked and confirmed that the additional central government funding that was to be
¶I provided to the Metropolitan Police was being properly deployed. When asked whether Mrs
¶Brooks' visit to his SpAds had been reported to him, he said:270
1221"I don't recall. It might well have been. I don't recall the exact conversations. I do recall, because I can see what might lie behind the question, which is: are you treating different investigations and campaigns fairly? And I do remember actually, as Prime Minister, consulting the Permanent Secretary at Number 10 about the step that the
¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
police were about to take, backed by the government, which was to provide some extra funding for the investigation, and it was drawn to my attention that there is a special Home Office procedure for helping with particularly complex and expensive investigations that's been used in various cases, and it was going to be used in this case and he was satisfied that that was – that had been dealt with properly and effectively. So it's an example, if you lie, of the importance of making sure these things are done properly and I believe it was."
¶3.47 When it came to the influence of newspaper campaigning on the issue, Mr Cameron had
rightly taken care to ask himself whether he was being confronted with self-interested media pressure or genuine public pressure:271
"Well, I mean clearly this was a very high-profile case, and a case that a number of newspapers wanted to champion because their readers wanted to champion it, and obviously as government you have to think: are we helping with this because there's media pressure or is it genuine public pressure, is there a genuine case, are we treating this fairly? And I did ask those questions of the Permanent Secretary at Number 10, and so I think we made an appropriate response. But I don't remember any sort of specific pressure being put on me…" (emphasis added).
¶3.48 Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks did discuss the phone hacking story. Mrs Brooks recalled that
in the period after the Guardian's July 2009 story, they spoke about it in general terms "on occasion" and once more specifically in late 2010 when there was an increase in the number of civil claims alleging phone hacking and seeking compensation. About the general conversations, Mrs Brooks said:272
"I think on occasion – you know, not very often, so maybe once or twice, because of the news and because, you know, the phone hacking story was a sort of a constant, or it kept coming up. We would bring it up, but in the most general terms. Maybe in 2010, we had a more specific conversation about it, which I think is – yeah, that's about right".
¶3.49 On the occasion of the more specific conversation, she could recall only in general terms what
¶Mr Cameron had asked:273
"I think he asked me – I think it had been in the news that day – I think it was about the civil cases. Maybe a new civil case had come out, and he asked me about it and I responded accordingly."
¶3.50 As for what she had told Mr Cameron, she said:274
1222I "It was a couple of years ago. It was a general discussion about – I think he asked me what the update was. I think it had been on the news that day, and I think I explained the story behind the news. No secret information, no privileged information; just a general update. I'm sorry, I can't remember the date, but I just don't have my records".
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
¶3.51 Mr Cameron had little recollection of the conversation but did not deny asking questions about the subject:275
"I don't really remember the specifics. I saw in her evidence that this was perhaps something to do with me asking a question about some of these civil cases and what was happening. I suspect it could have been that. This was an issue that was obviously being discussed. It was a controversial issue with all the civil cases and the rest of it, and I expect I could have asked some questions about that, but I don't recall the specifics".
¶3.52 From these imperfect recollections, it can be seen that the Prime Minister was paying attention
to the emerging story, recognising its sensitivity, but does not appear to have focused on any detail. The indications are that he was provided with only general and publicly available information.
¶3.53 When, on 15 July 2011, after the story had reached its height, Mrs Brooks resigned from her
position as Chief Executive Officer of News International, she recalled receiving a message of support from Mr Cameron, albeit indirectly. The exchange with Counsel to the Inquiry on the subject was this:276
"Q. It has been reported in relation to Mr Cameron – but who knows whether it's true – that you received a message along the lines of: "Keep your head up." Is that true or not? A. From? Q. From Mr Cameron, indirectly. You'll have seen that in the Times. A. Yes, I did see it in the Times. Along those lines. It was more – I don't think they were the exact words but along those lines. Q. Is the gist right, at least? A. Yes, I would say so. But it was indirect. It wasn't a direct text message. Q. Did you also receive a message from him via an intermediary along these lines: Sorry I could not have been as loyal to you as I have been, but Ed Miliband had me on the run." Or words to that effect? "A. Similar, but again, very indirectly. Q. So, broadly speaking, that message was transmitted to you, was it?
¶I A. Yes."
¶3.54 It was but one of a number of messages of support or commiseration which she received
1223from politicians, those working in their offices and others. The messages from politicians were all indirect and predominantly from Conservative rather than Labour politicians.277 This may have been more a reflection of News International's support for the Conservatives and a legacy of the company's sudden move away from Labour in 2009 than anything else.
¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
¶3.55 As is well known, Mrs Brooks is currently facing criminal charges in connection with allegations
of wrongdoing at the NoTW, including in relation to phone hacking, perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. As is equally well known, she vehemently denies wrongdoing and has declared her intention of mounting a vigorous defence to all charges.
¶Andy Coulson and the unfolding phone hacking scandal 3.56 Liberal Democrats had been highly critical of the appointment by Mr Cameron of Mr Coulson.
It is therefore unsurprising that the question whether he should be appointed to the position Director of Government Communications was raised with Mr Cameron by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP, in the early days of the coalition. Mr Clegg recalled asking whether it was the right thing to do although he stressed that neither he, nor Mr Cameron, knew then what is known now. He said:278
"A. Yes. That is my recollection. The background to it is that we, the Liberal Democrats, my colleague, for instance, Chris Huhne, had been very outspoken in our criticisms of Andy Coulson when he was appointed to work for the Conservative Party in opposition. It's self-evidently an issue. This was an individual who we had been highly critical of and had been critical of his appointment before the election, so, you know, it would have been very odd for us not to seek to straighten out our views now that we were suddenly and unexpectedly thrown together in government, as with so many issues. I genuinely cannot remember the precise wording, but, you know, I said to the Prime Minister, I asked him, "Is this the right thing to do, given the controversy around Andy Coulson?" given obviously the Prime Minister was aware of my party's views on it. The Prime Minister explained the reasons that he's given publicly why he felt that he'd been satisfied with the responses that he'd received from Andy Coulson and he felt, as he's put it, that he deserves a second chance. Of course, a lot of the information and allegations we now know were not known to me or indeed the Prime Minister then. It's quite important to remember that this conversation would have been quite different – we know now or think we know now that we didn't know then. And also it is important to remember that in a coalition, the Prime Minister has a right to make choices about who he appoints to his team which I can't and wouldn't ever seek to veto, in the same way that I am free to make appointments to my team which he can't veto. It was not a conversation which was based on the premise that somehow, you know, I would say, "You can't do that", it's just that wasn't the understanding of it." I
¶3.57 Mr Clegg was not the only person to raise the issue with Mr Cameron. The Prime Minister
described "a handful of people" having done so, including from within the Conservative Party:279
1224"Q. Okay. Were similar concerns expressed to you directly by anybody else, to the best of your recollection?
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
A. There were – you know, some people did have concerns. I can't remember exactly who and when, but as I said, this was a controversial appointment. I've read in some of these books about a number of people who have made these points, but I don't recall many specifics, but clearly some people did have concerns, yes. Q. And were they concerns expressed from within your own party? A. I think there might have been one or two, I think there might have been a specific MP, I think Andrew Tyrie. That's not something I recall directly but something that has been pointed out to me, but he may have expressed concerns to me, but ... Q. In terms of quantity, approximately how many people fall into this group of expressing concerns to you? A. I couldn't put a number on it, but not – you know, a handful of people, I think it would be."
¶3.58 Lord Ashdown cautioned Ed Llewellyn, whom he knew well, to the effect that the appointment
was a decision which the Prime Minister might well come to regret; but he did not have any new specific information about him. Mr Llewellyn saw no need to pass on Lord Ashdown's opinion (for an opinion is all that it was) to Mr Cameron at the time, although he did so in the summer of 2011 when the hacking scandal peaked. The point was not new and Mr Llewellyn must have been well aware that Mr Cameron fully understood the position and his decision was perfectly reasonable.280
¶3.59 Contrary to some assertions that concerns were raised by a wide range of different people,
Lord O'Donnell did not receive any complaints about Mr Coulson as he made clear in his evidence:281
"Neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the royal household raised any concerns with me or officials either before or during Mr Coulson's period of employment as a special adviser. I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to be asked about Buckingham Palace when they have already clearly said on no occasion did any officials from Buckingham Palace raise concerns to Downing Street and indeed it is outrageous to suggest this. Neither were any concerns raised with my by the Prime Minister or any other special advisers about Mr Coulson's conduct in previous employment."
¶3.60 The question of Mr Coulson's security clearance in Government is an issue which aroused
much public comment. When recruited by the Conservative Party, Mr Coulson was the subject of a standard background check by a commercial organisation, Control Risks: this relies on publicly available information.282 In Government he was vetted to a level known as SC, Security Clearance. He was not vetted to a higher level known as DV, Developed Vetting, although he
¶I was in the course of the lengthy process of being assessed for this level of clearance at the time of his resignation.283
1225¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
¶3.61 The level of security clearance was not the decision of either Mr Cameron or Mr Coulson
but the Civil Service.284 SC is appropriate for long term, frequent access to secret material, or occasional/controlled access to top secret material. DV vetting is exceptional, conducted only where there is a "business need" and is required solely for those who have long-term, frequent/uncontrolled access to top secret material.285 Lord O'Donnell made clear that it was not uncommon for people in Mr Coulson's position to start work without DV clearance but then come to require it. So far as Mr Coulson was concerned, he explained that a need for more frequent access to top secret material than SC clearance permitted had became apparent as a result of issues and stories concerning terrorism. He put it this way:286
"It quite often turned out that they would start off with that view – or, in this case, the Number 10 permanent secretary would have that view – and then, as events changed, they would realise – the first big terrorist event came along and then there would be a lot of papers which, by their nature, were all top secret, and then you would say, "Actually, this isn't working, we need to give access to this", or: "It would have been better if that person had access to these papers routinely, therefore we've decided ...". And this is what happened with Mr Coulson: we decided in the light of the terrorist incident, the airline bomb plot, that actually it made for sense for him to be DV'd so we could give him regular access to these papers. Up to then, it hadn't been an issue because I don't think he'd been that interested in those aspects of work which would have required them to have top secret access."
¶3.62 Information concerning the recent Directors of Communication and Prime Minister's Official
Spokesmen showed that, of six post holders, three had DV clearance when they took up their posts, two had it granted within around three months and the other just over seven months after taking up his post.287
¶3.63 In any event, the process of considering Mr Coulson for DV status would not have involved a
detailed investigation of phone hacking at the NoTW; rather it is directed at whether he was at risk of blackmail. Lord O'Donnell said:288
"I think some people have different understandings of what DV'ing would reveal. It wouldn't have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example. LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: No. It's concerned with whether you're likely to be a risk. A. Whether you're blackmailable, basically, yes, absolutely, and in terms of your financial position or your personal life."
¶3.64 Upon his appointment as Director of Government Communications, Mr Coulson was required
1226to declare any conflicts of interest. He still owned some shares in News Corp at that time. Their I gross value by the time he gave evidence was around £40,000.289 Lord O'Donnell confirmed
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
that these should have been declared but were not.290 Mr Coulson, realistically, did not seek to excuse his failure to do so. He first raised the point in his witness statement:291
"Whilst I didn't consider my holding of this stock to represent any kind of conflict of interest, in retrospect I wish I had paid more attention to it. I was never asked about any share or stock holdings and because I knew that I wasn't involved in any commercial issues, including the BskyB bid, it never occurred to me that there could be a conflict of interest".
¶Later, he said in evidence:292
"This is by way of explanation, not excuse. My job in opposition was a busy one. My job in government was busier still, and I didn't take the time to pay close attention to my own circumstances in this regard, and I should have done."
¶3.65 Significantly for the purposes of the Inquiry, Mr Coulson did not discuss the existence of
his shareholding in News Corp with anybody in the Conservative Party or in the Coalition Government. There is no evidence that anyone else knew about it therefore, or ought to have asked about it.293
¶3.66 Questions as to the wisdom of the appointment of Mr Coulson did not go away. When the
New York Times published the article of 1 September 2010 which, amongst other things, directly accused Mr Coulson of encouraging or knowledge of phone hacking, Mr Coulson issued an immediate denial.294 Mr Cameron was made aware of the article but was prepared to rely on Mr Cameron's denial:295
"I don't recall exactly the conversations that took place. It was on the day I moved into Number 10 Downing Street after the birth of our daughter, so that's the memory I have from that day rather than anything around this, but I'm absolutely clear he made an outright denial and that was that".
¶3.67 In the same month DAC John Yates reacted by offering to brief the Prime Minister on the
response of the Metropolitan Police Service to the article in the New York Times. The offer was declined by Mr Llewellyn who made the Prime Minister aware of the approach.296 Mr Cameron explained why Mr Llewellyn was right to decline the briefing, a decision which he said DAC Yates has since accepted was proper and understandable:297
"Q. But so we understand it, why was it not appropriate? A. Well, I think because there was the potential of an investigation following this allegation in the New York Times article, I think in terms of just the perception that
¶I
1227¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
there would have been – if I was offered a special briefing by the Metropolitan Police, I think that would be inappropriate. I'm sure the Metropolitan Police wouldn't have done anything inappropriate, but it would have given the appearance of at least being inappropriate, and so Ed Llewellyn declined the request. John Yates said, and I think the words are that that was understandable and sensible, I think he said, and Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, looked into this and he's judged that Ed Llewellyn responded absolutely correctly to this. Q. Did you have any further conversations with Mr Coulson before his – A. I think, sorry, John Yates said: The offer was properly and understandably rejected." These are the words that he used. So I think he understood that while it can be appropriate to brief ministers on operational issues, it wouldn't have been on this occasion. Sorry."
¶3.68 On 24 February 2010, before the election, the Guardian published an article alleging that,
while Mr Coulson was the editor, the NoTW had "employed a freelance private investigator even though he had been accused of corrupting police officers and had just been released from a seven-year prison sentence for blackmail".298 Although the article did not name the investigator concerned, for legal reasons, it was a reference to Jonathan Rees who was then the subject of further criminal proceedings. Ian Katz discussed the issue first with Steve Hilton in February 2010 and then with Mr Llewellyn in October 2010. The information was not passed to Mr Cameron. He explained why to the House of Commons on 13 July 2011, evidence which he repeated to the Inquiry:299
"First, this information was not passed on to me, but let me be clear that this was not some secret stash of information; almost all of it was published in The Guardian in February 2010, at the same time my office was approached. It contained no allegations directly linking Andy Coulson to illegal behaviour and it did not shed any further light on the issue of phone hacking, so it was not drawn to my attention by my office".
¶3.69 The editor of the Guardian did not raise the issue with Mr Cameron at meetings both in the
month after the article was published and the following year.300 Mr Cameron first became aware that Jonathan Rees had been employed by the NoTW on Mr Coulson's watch when the Guardian published a further more explicit story on 12 March 2011, seven weeks after Mr Coulson's resignation.301 In those circumstances there can be no criticism of Mr Cameron for not raising the issue with Mr Coulson or taking action arising from it. I
¶3.70 Matters eventually got to a point where, on 21 January 2011, Mr Coulson resigned. From his perspective, Mr Cameron described what happened:302
1228¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
"I had a number of conversations with him about his impending resignation and what followed from the New York Times article, which I know you've looked at, is the police then had an initial look to see if they should investigate again and said they shouldn't, then they had another look and again concluded that they shouldn't, and then the Crown Prosecution Service on 10 December said they weren't going to take it any further. So again, these weren't just assurances accepted by me, as it were, there were others that took this view. Then, really, this was the start of the process whereby Andy Coulson was becoming clear that, as he put it, when the spokesman needs a spokesman, it's time to move on. He was finding his job was impossible to do because of all these stories and the rest of it, and obviously I had a number of discussions with him about his departure."
¶3.71 During the eight months in which Mr Coulson was the Director of Government Communications,
he had very regular contact with the Prime Minister. His evidence gave a good insight into Mr Cameron's media operation. There were usually two meetings each day at which he would see the Prime Minister, one in the morning between 08:30 and 09:00hrs and the other in the afternoon at 16:00hrs. Mr Coulson provided a brief media summary as part of the morning meeting. The afternoon meeting involved an update and a look ahead. Mr Coulson corroborated the Prime Minister's evidence that Mr Cameron made a conscious decision to reduce his personal contact with the media after becoming Prime Minister so that he could concentrate on Government. Cabinet Ministers, Mr Coulson stated, were encouraged to do more. He described the approach as follows:303
"One of the biggest changes of approach from opposition to government with regard to communication and the media was the decision to reduce the amount of appearances by the PM. Cabinet members were encouraged to do more. We felt that Gordon Brown's habit of providing an almost constant commentary of interviews was the wrong approach and that David Cameron would aim to be less obsessed by day to day media demands. This had the benefit of creating more time for the real work of Government. It also created the impression and more important a reality, of a calmer, more professional Government. This was demonstrated by the fact that on arrival in No10, David Cameron also opted to swap Gordon Brown's private office, which resembled a newspaper newsroom complete with giant plasma screens showing 24 hour news channels, for the smaller office next to the Cabinet Room".
¶3.72 In Government Mr Coulson continued his policy of meeting media proprietors, executives and seeking to cultivate and maintain a wide and deep range of contacts. This included contact I with former News International colleagues, both formal and informal in nature. He stayed at
1229Dorneywood with Mr and Mrs Osborne, and with Mr and Mrs Brooks, in 2010. Having worked together, Mr Coulson and Mr Osborne had become friends.304 Mr Coulson later spent the night at the Brooks' with his family on 31 December 2010 to see in the New Year.305 p3, paras 13-14, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-Dame- Elizabeth-Forgan.pdf p59, lines 4-9, ibid pp2-3, paras 4-6, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Witness-Statement-of-John- Edwards.pdf ibid p18, para 86, http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Witness-Statement-of-Andy- Coulson.pdf p150, ibid p1, para 1.5, ibid para 177, ibid He moved
¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
in a similar circle of politicians and media executives as Mr Cameron although he denied advising Mr Cameron to get as close as he could to Mrs Brooks.306
¶3.73 Mr Coulson's role on the first occasion that Rupert Murdoch met Mr Cameron after the
election has already been described but he was also at the second, in New York; a dinner for the Prime Minister hosted by the Mayor of New York. He also met with Les Hinton and a number of News International editors as well as a wide range of other media contacts.307
¶3.74 Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne were unanimous that whilst working for the Conservative Party
and later for the Coalition Government, Mr Coulson had discharged his duties professionally.308 Mr Cameron said of Mr Coulson's performance:309
"I just make one other point, which is – because I recognise this is a controversial appointment, this has come back to haunt both him and me and I've said what I've said about 20/20 hindsight, but in doing the job as Director of Communications for the Conservative Party, and then Director of Communications in Downing Street, he did the job very effectively. There weren't any complaints about how he conducted himself. He ran a very effective team. He behaved in a very proper way. Of course, if that wasn't the case, then I think people would have an even stronger argument of saying, "Well, you took a risk, you employed this person and look what's happened." He did his job very well, and I think that is an important point to make."
¶3.75 Mr Osborne, like Mr Cameron, has expressed regret at the appointment with hindsight. He stated:310
"I said on 25th July 2011 that "knowing what we know now, we regret the decision and I suspect that Andy Coulson would not have taken the job knowing what he knows now. But we did not have 20/20 hindsight when we made that decision." I hold this view because of the evidence that has since come to light about what happened at the News of the World that had not been uncovered by the original police investigation. I did not speak to Mr Coulson before making this statement, or since, so I was surmising what his view might be."
¶The decision to hold a public inquiry 3.76 2011 brought no abatement in concern about phone hacking. On 26 January 2011 the
1230Metropolitan Police Service launched Operation Weeting, following the provision of significant new information to them by News International, which effectively reopened its inquiries into voicemail interception.311 The first of many arrests in connection with the I
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
investigation occurred in April 2011. The scope of police inquiries widened on 20 June 2011 when Operation Elveden commenced.312 It set out to investigate allegations that police officers had been receiving payment for confidential information from NoTW reporters.
¶3.77 The tide of civil litigation against News Group News Ltd continued to rise, prompting
significant public admissions and apologies in April 2011 to a number of public figures. Mr Miliband first called for an independent inquiry in April 2011.313 On 12 May 2011, in open court, NGN admitted liability to wide ranging allegations in the civil proceedings brought by Sienna Miller.314
¶3.78 Matters came to a head in July 2011 when a full blown media storm erupted. It began on 4
July 2011 with the publication by the Guardian under the Headline: "Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail was hacked by News of World" written by Nick Davies and his colleague Amelia Hill.315 News that the NoTW had intercepted Milly Dowler's voicemail caused immediate and profound public outrage. Mr Clegg put it this way:316
"A strong, free, diverse press is the lifeblood of a democratic society. Yet the evidence of widespread phone hacking at The News of the World, culminating in the revelation that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked, led to widespread and justified public revulsion. In a very vivid way, illegal newsroom practices were shown to have impacted on the lives of ordinary people in the most distressing of circumstances."
¶3.79 Events continued to move quickly after that. On 7 July 2011 James Murdoch announced
the closure of the NoTW which was being abandoned by advertisers. On 8 July 2011, Mr Cameron announced that there would be a judge-led inquiry to investigate phone hacking at the NoTW and a second inquiry to look at the ethics and culture of the press. He described the moment as "carthartic" for both the press and politicians, a term to which he returned in his evidence:317
"We're here because of the truly dreadful things that happened not to politicians but to ordinary members of the public whose lives had been turned upside down when they've already suffered through losing their children, and had their lives turned upside down in a totally unacceptable way and this is, I think, a cathartic moment where press, politicians, police, all the relationships that haven't been right, we have a chance to reset them and that is what we must do."
¶3.80 On the same day Mr Coulson, Clive Goodman and one other were arrested. The Guardian
published the fact that it had discussed the NoTW's links with Jonathan Rees with Mr Cameron's aides. On 9 July 2011, DAC Yates expressed his "extreme regret" at not reopening Operation Caryatid. The last edition of the NoTW was published on 10 July 2011. On 11 July
¶I 2011 Mr Hunt announced the referral of the BSkyB bid to the Competition Commission,
1231¶Chapter 4 | The Conservative Revival and the Coalition
following the withdrawal of the UIL by News Corp.318 The cumulative effect of these events aroused very great public concern. There was also considerable concern about who else had been the victim of phone hacking and other unethical practices by journalists, or those working at their instructions.
¶3.81 On 13 July 2011 Mr Cameron, after discussions with both Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg,
announced this Inquiry to Parliament.319 The terms of reference were agreed with Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg and later further discussed with the devolved administrations and others. Emphasising the need for a political consensus in response to the scandal, he explained:320
"In my view, it is important that politicians rise to the challenge to do the right thing for the country. A free and fearless press is an essential part of our democratic process and politicians must act to maintain this wider principle. The opportunity is for this Inquiry to produce recommendations that all political parties can get behind and get the balance of regulation right. That is why when I set up this Inquiry I agreed the Terms of Reference with the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties."
- Reflections 4.1 Mr Cameron has worked closely with the media throughout his careers in politics and
television. His experiences of the relationship between the press and the politicians in the 1990s and early 2000s before becoming Leader of the Opposition were evidently formative. Both in Opposition and in Government, his declared strategy has been to engage with a very wide range of broadcast and print media and to do so in depth, formally and informally.
¶4.2 He felt it necessary to make considerable efforts and to allocate a good deal of his time,
especially in Opposition, to his media strategy. The scale of his disclosed contacts with media figures amply demonstrate that this was so. As Prime Minister, he took deliberate steps to reduce his personal contact with the media but, at a different level, the approach of maintaining wide and deep contacts with the media remained and was continued in Government.
¶4.3 The demands made of politicians both by the 24 hour news cycle and the increasing tendency
to "high volume" newspaper coverage of events have become greater than ever during Mr Cameron's time at the top level in politics. Those demands are felt in concentrated form by directors of communication for political parties and, especially, by the Director of Government Communication.
¶4.4 Both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have, with hindsight, expressed regret at their decision
1232to appoint Mr Coulson to that post. Mr Coulson's own assurances played an important part I in that decision. He continues to stand by them. For obvious reasons concerned with the criminal investigations and prosecutions (both in England and Scotland), I have not asked any questions directed to the issue of what, if anything, Mr Coulson did know and when or whether the assurances that he has given are accurate. These are for another time. None of that, however, means that I cannot address the Terms of Reference.
¶PART I | The Press and Politicians
¶4.5 The results of Mr Cameron's media strategy in Opposition were successful in winning
the support of the centre right press and the endorsement of News International. The circumstances in which Rupert Murdoch and his close advisers decided to endorse Mr Cameron are complex. Mr Cameron went to great lengths to secure meetings face-to-face with Mr Murdoch and other News International executives and editors. The benefits of this may have played some part in the outcome but should not be overestimated. As Mr Osborne fairly observed, the Conservatives were not the only politicians dining with the Murdochs and their executives.321 There were many factors other than personal contact.
¶4.6 The evidence does not, of course, establish anything resembling a 'deal' whereby News
International's support was traded for the expectation of policy favours. All of those involved strenuously deny that there was a deal whether express or implied. The documents do not gainsay them. Nor do the Coalition Government's actions in Government.
¶4.7 Nevertheless, Mr Cameron frankly and, in my view, properly accepts that politicians have got too close to the media. In his words:322
"Yes. I mean, that's part of my evidence, really, is to say I think this relationship has been going wrong for, you know – it's never been perfect. There have always been problems and you can point to examples of Churchill putting Beaverbrook as a minister. There have been issues for years. But I think in the last 20 years, I think the relationship has not been right. I think it has been too close, as I explain in my evidence, and I think we need to try and get it on a better footing."
¶4.8 The problem is public perception. This section of the Report has dealt with too many issues
where the public, not knowing any more than it has (or, I might say, than what it reads in the newspapers), has been entitled to worry about the way things have been done and what has been going on. A way of conducting relationships with the media which leads to a situation in which a public Inquiry is needed to take an objective, not to say forensic, look at the matter in order to reassure the public cannot be considered as satisfactory or itself in the public interest.
¶4.9 Although it manifests itself in different ways, the problem is not unique to any individual
politician or any one political party. It has affected previous administrations, both in office and whilst seeking power. As Mr Cameron has agreed, change is needed, and that means that political leaders need to show leadership in making that change. That is also my concluded view. I consider in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of this Part of the Report what, in my view, would support political leaders in making that change.
¶I
1233